TAPHouston

From the meeting tonight for Norhill, Woodland Heights and Freedmans Town:

About 250 people were there and at least 225 were in favor of the nowe ordinance. Maybe more. One thing that was said that is encouraging, Sue Lovell said "I don't know how to say it any plainer, we WILL have a ballot vote" and I don't believe she qualified it this time with an "if there is enough opposition" If she based her decision on tonight she would probably decide it isn't necessary. Oh, and the ballot will use the 51% threshold not the 67%, unless they do it after the new ordinacne has passed. I do think that next weeks meeting will be a different story but people do need to show up. Marlene also explained that if the ballots show there is support in certain areas and not in others that they will change the district to fit the support.

I don't believe the vote was quite that lopsided, especially with regard to districts other than Woodland Heights. Lovell did indeed affirmatively state that there would be a ballot vote and there was NO qualification in her statement; however, when I asked her after the meeting to confirm she meant what she said, she claimed she didn't say that and why would she send a ballot when the vote was clear. I pointed out that she had used the word "guaranty" when she said there would be a repetition. She became very agitated and eventually said she wouldn't talk to me any more because I called her a liar.

A couple of things were clear: Lovell is being very underhanded in how she is conducting these meetings. In addition to her misrepresentations about a repetition, she and the other city employees carefully culled through the written questions and would read one question but provide an answer to a different question.

Second, it is clear that neither Lovell nor the other city representatives have much idea of what is in the ordinance. At one point, a city representative answered a question about fences by saying they weren't covered and by pointing out that you don't even need a permit unless it exceeds a certain height. Of course, fences are specifically enumerated in the list of items that constitute alterations. The question about landscaping came up. Again they claimed that it wasn't covered. Again the plain language of the ordinance covers any alteration to the "site," defined as the property.

I'm sure this is a done deal but I'm glad I saw just how dishonest/uninformed/clueless (take your pick) our city officials are.

Why can't there be a middle ground with lot size limits, setback limits, etc. Tangible, objective characteristics so that there is no need for a weighted 13-member panel to decide what we can and can't do with OUR properties.

People, all I know is that if you don't want this, you had better show up on the 10th and speak out and demand a new vote once the rules are set.

Also, is there a way to lock down this ordinance so that no changes can be made in the future without another vote (serious question)?

I live in North Norhill and there are objective guidelines already in place--the deed restrictions. They include set backs from the front, rear, and side lot lines, and we have a prevailing lot size to prevent the division of the lots. The historical ordinance is meant to do one thing: prevent a property owner from making any changes to the exterior of the property he owns. It has nothing to do with making sure one property use does not infringe on another's property. Those proscriptions are already in place.